Category Archives: conservatism

There are Neo-Nazis parading in Charlottesville, Virginia. Young mostly, male mostly, and all white. They’re convinced, probably radicalized online, that (1) they are the master race; (2) they are victims; and (3) they are ‘free’ to display their hatred and bigotry in public spaces. They are the Great White Whine.

And the man in the White House is silent.

If they weren’t white and they decided to conduct a march with burning tiki torches they’d probably find out what ‘oppression’ feels like. If they weren’t white and decided to show up for their rally armed, then they’d probably find out what ‘oppression’ looks like. If they weren’t white, and they showed up calling for “Power” they’d assuredly find out what ‘oppression’ sounds like.

And the man in the White House is silent.

A thug, and these are thugs, don’t necessarily have to wear hoodies and jeans; they can just as easily be clad in khaki trousers and golf shirts. If the Neo-Nazis proved nothing else today they’ve at least provided proof of this truth. Interesting isn’t it, that African Americans, some 13% of the American population, honor Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, fly the Stars and Stripes with pride, and make up 17% of our active duty military. People of Hispanic heritage constitute about 18% of our population, and make up 12% of our active duty military — three times their number in 1980. The Neo-Nazis gathered in Virginia waved the Stars and Bars, the battle flag of treason and traitors to the Union instead of the Stars and Stripes. It takes a major amount of chutzpah for them to declare themselves “Patriots.”

And the man in the White House is silent.

Thus far the only comment from the White House came from the First Lady, herself an immigrant, to say: “Our country encourages freedom of speech, but let’s communicate w/o hate in our hearts. No good comes from violence.” Granted this isn’t a full throated denunciation of Neo-Nazism, but it’s more than any other White House figure has ventured.

And, still the man in the White House is silent.

And, his silence is a grave danger to the Republican Party. Ordinarily I’d not spend much thought on how the Republican Party should position itself for success in this country, but this is serious. I do believe in a two party system, I do believe there is a place and purpose for conservative policy arguments — I don’t have to agree with them, but that “free speech” part is important. If the current administration continues to be associated with Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, and other thugs then the human propensity to append guilt by association will engage. If David Duke marches with his fellow Neo-Nazi White Supremacist thugs, and the administration make no official (and stern) condemnation, then the guilt by association will have more potential traction.

And still the man in the White House is silent.

The man in the White House has yet to condemn the attack on the Bloomington, MN mosque — indeed, one of his spokespersons opined it might have been a “fake hate crime.” He’s not apologized in any way, shape, or form for comments about immigrants from Mexico and Central American countries being “bad hombres.” He’s not offered any solace for African Americans who are searching for ways to attract attention to their efforts to bring their communities and their local law enforcement personnel closer toward the goal of better, and more cooperative, relationships. Therefore, we ought not be surprised that…

The man in the White House is silent.

His followers declare that President Obama’s politics were divisive. Perhaps because he heard the complaints of the African American communities, as Trump’s followers do not? Perhaps because he understood the economic and cultural contributions of immigrants to this country, as Trump’s followers do not? Perhaps because he appreciated the humanity and worth of members of the LBGT community, as followers of Trump do not? An individual’s failure to recognize the humanity and worth of those who are unlike himself isn’t the fault of any politician — it is seated in the insecurity of that individual himself, by himself, selfishly for himself.

And the man in the White House is silent.

Silent as the thugs align with his political party, emboldened to march without hoods and masks, to wave their flags alongside his banner, inviting the notion that to be a Republican is to be a Neo-Nazi, a White Supremacist, and an intolerant bigot. Or, that to join the Party is to align oneself with the Neo-Nazis, the White Supremacists, and the bigots. What I hope for the Republican Party is…

A man in the White House who will not remain silent, who will banish from his administration those who harbor Neo-Nazi, White Supremacist, bigoted, intolerant views. Republican members of Congress who will condemn the Neo-Nazis, the bigots and the intolerant. Republican Party leaders at the national, state, and local levels who will vehemently assert that the Republicans today decry intolerance, bigotry, and racism, and will not associate themselves with it. I hope to see Republicans with the courage to say, we can do perfectly well in our elections without the staining of our honor with your bigotry, racism, Neo-Nazism, and White Supremacy. sil

The man in the White House is silently leading the Party to a narrow and dark place. It doesn’t have to be that way.

Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) has cultivated his “moderate” image to the point that this adjective is attached to him with remarkable consistency — when if a person does even a perfunctory piece of research on his actual voting record what emerges is the model of a hard line conservative. There is a pattern. The Senator expresses “concerns” with a bill; then announces with ranging degrees of fanfare his opposition to a bill “in its current form,” then when the rubber grinds on the road surface the Senator votes along with the Republican leadership.

Why would anyone seriously believe he would support fixing the Affordable Care Act’s problems and not ultimately support what is now being called the “skinny repeal” version in the Senate based on the following voting record:

In 2007 then Representative Heller voted against the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act (HR 4). Then on August 1, 2007 he voted against HR 3162, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program reauthorization. The next day he voted against HR 734, the Prescription Drug Imports bill. On March 5, 2008 he voted against HR 1424, the Mental Health Coverage bill. Further into 2008 he voted “no” on HR 5501, the bill to fund programs fighting AIDS, Malaria, and Tuberculosis, and “no” again on the concurrence version of the bill in July. If he had a ‘flash’ of moderation during this period it happened in the summer of 2008 when he voted in favor of HR 5613 (Medicaid extensions and changes), HR 6631 (Medicare), the latter including a vote to override the President’s veto. By November 2009 he was back in full Conservative mode.

He voted against HR 3962 (Health Care and Insurance Law amendments) on November 8, 2009, and HR 3961 (Revising Medicare Physician Fee Schedules and re-establishing PAYGO) on November 19, 2009.

In March 2010 Heller voted against HR 4872 (Health Care Reconciliation Act), and HR 3590 (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act). He also voted against the concurrence bills.

January 19, 2011 he voted in favor of the Repealing the Health Care bill (HR 2). He also signaled his stance on Planned Parenthood when he voted in favor of H.Amdt. 95 (Prohibiting the use of Federal funds for Planned Parenthood) on February 18, 2011. He was in favor of repealing the individual mandate (HR 4), of repealing the Prevention and Public Health Fund (HR 1217). May 4, 2011 he voted to repeal funding of the construction of school based health centers (HR 1214).

There was another “soft” period in some of his initial Senate votes in 2011, especially concerning the importation of medication from Canada (interesting since many prescription drugs are manufactured in other overseas sites). See S. Amdt 769, S. Amdt 2111, and S. Amdt 2107 in May 2012. On March 31, 2014 he voted in favor of HR 4302 (Protecting Access to Medicare).

He was back riding the Republican rails in September 2015, supporting an amendment to defund Planned Parenthood, (S. Amdt 2669) which failed a cloture vote. Then on December 3, 2015 he voted in favor of another ACA repeal bill (HR 3762). If we’re looking for patterns in this record they aren’t too difficult to discern. (1) Senator Heller can be relied upon to vote in favor of any legislation which deprives Planned Parenthood of funding for health care services, (2) Senator Heller can be relied upon to vote in favor of repealing the Affordable Care Act, and (3) Senator Heller’s voting record, if it illustrates any ‘moderation’ at all, comes in the form of dealing with prescription drug prices, but even that is a mixed bag of votes.

“Obamacare isn’t the answer, but doing nothing to try to solve the problems it has created isn’t the answer either,” the statement read. “That is why I will vote to move forward and give us a chance to address the unworkable aspects of the law that have left many Nevadans — particularly those living in rural areas — with dwindling or no choices.

“Whether it’s my ideas to protect Nevadans who depend on Medicaid or the Graham-Cassidy proposal that empowers states and repeals the individual and employer mandates, there are commonsense solutions that could improve our health care system and today’s vote gives us the opportunity to fight for them. If the final product isn’t improved for the state of Nevada, then I will not vote for it; if it is improved, I will support it.”

We should examine them with some caution. If he is referring to rural Nevada voters as ‘victims’ of the Affordable Care Act he might want to note that before the ACA there was one insurer in the northern Nevada rural market and if there is only one now that’s really not much of a change, much less a “nightmare.” Nor is he mentioning that the proposed cuts to Medicaid will have a profoundly negative effect on rural Nevada hospitals. [DB previous]

“The new plan released Thursday morning and written by Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and Bill Cassidy (La.) would block grant about $500 billion of federal spending to the states over 10 years to either repeal, repair or keep their ObamaCare programs.”

We have no idea if the number is an accurate estimate of what would keep the health care systems of all 50 states afloat — no one seems to want to ‘score’ anything these days. Additionally, Americans should be aware by now that when Republicans chant “Block Grant” they mean “dump it on the states, wash our hands, and walk away” while the states struggle to keep up with demands to meet needs and provide services, operating on budgets which cannot function on deficits.

Then, there’s that perfectly typical Hellerian comment: “If it is improved, I will support it,” leaving the issue entirely up to Senator Heller’s subjective assessment if “it” has improved his re-election chances enough to go along with it while not upsetting his very conservative base. Meanwhile, the media persists in repeating the “Moderate Heller” mythology, and we haven’t even begun to speak of his actions to thwart and later repeal any common sense regulations on the financial sector.

During this something less than merry Month of May the United States Senate is scheduled to take up the Regulatory Accountability Act which will make it all but impossible for our own government to protect citizens (and citizen consumers) from corporate depredation. We have a warning:

“Among its most egregious provisions, the RAA sets an impossibly high burden of proof that agencies would have to meet before finalizing and implementing a new rule, such as a new air quality or food safety standard. The bill also requires agencies to conduct several rounds of cost-benefit analyses that give more weight to the compliance costs to industry than the benefits to Americans. Taken together, these provisions and others in the bill could lead to total gridlock in the agencies charged with protecting the food we eat, the water we drink, and the air we breathe; ensuring that products are safe before they enter the market; and reining in the worst financial market abuses.”

A better label would be the Unaccountability Act of 2017 — in that corporations would be protected from citizens who like drinking clean water and breathing clean air, eating healthy and uncontaminated food, driving safe cars, and being reasonably assured that Wall Street investment interests aren’t pulling a “de-regulation” extravaganza that could make the debacle of 2007-2008 seem mild by comparison.

If you enjoyed the scandals of Enron, the predatory behavior of Wells Fargo, the Great Recession brought on by Wall Street Casino operations — then you’ll love this draft to deregulate the major corporations.

On the other hand if one is appalled by the “Screw Grandma Milly” antics of the Enron crowd, if one isn’t concerned that the bank isn’t surreptitiously opening accounts (and charging fees) like Wells Fargo, or if one isn’t concerned that mortgages might be oversold, and fed into another giant bubble of derivative trading — then a phone call to the Solons of the Senate is required.

As the machinations of the Russians, the squirming of the administration, and the daily deluge of tweets from Dear Leader, suck the air out of the room, beware that major corporate interests are working through the halls of Congress.

This is the time to contact our Senators, Senator Dean Heller (who has made no secret of his affinity for deregulation) and Senator Catherine Cortez-Masto who is more likely to be amenable to the concerns of ordinary citizens. The so-called “Regulatory Accountability” is nothing more than a not-so-stealthy attack on ordinary Americans by extraordinarily powerful corporate interests.

Senator McConnell couldn’t have made himself more clear to the Republican leadership — let’s please have less drama from the White House so we can get along with our agenda. Less tactfully phrased, McConnell and his myrmidons such as Representative Mark Amodei (NV2) and Senator Heller (R-NV) isn’t going to do anything about the dolt in the Oval Office until after they get what they want. They want two things: (1) to return the control of the health insurance market back to the insurance companies; and (2) to dismantle the financial and consumer protections enacted in the Dodd Frank Act, and the Sarbanes Oxley Act. Not sure about this, then please consider the current push for the Choice Act:

“At a time when too many hard-working American families are still recovering from the devastating impact of the 2008 financial crash, deregulating Wall Street’s biggest firms again makes no sense. Yet the Financial CHOICE Act threatens to do exactly that.

It would allow the biggest Wall Street banks to opt-out of significant financial protection rules, while those banks that remain in the regulatory system would be blessed with watered down versions of once-tough protections, like living wills and stress tests. Perhaps most worryingly, the CHOICE Act would cripple two of the most important post-crash reforms: the Financial Stability and Oversight Council (FSOC) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).” [the Hill]

Review: The CFPB was the agency which brought to light, and then levied fines against Wells Fargo for egregious violations of their customers’ privacy and financial interests. Little wonder the banks aren’t happy with those “bureaucrats.” Less wonder why the Republicans aren’t going to do anything about the President who had to fire his National Security Adviser — until the Choice Act is safely delivered to his desk.

We should also recall that the Republican version of the healthcare reform act is much less about health insurance reform than it is about bestowing tax cuts for the wealthiest among us, to the tune of close to $765 billion over the next ten years. We can easily conjecture that the GOP will do nothing about the man in the office who fired the US Attorney in the Southern District of New York, and then the emissary from the Department of Justice who warned him about the dangers presented by the presence of General Flynn. At least nothing will be done, until the Republicans can cut Medicaid to the barest of bones:

His (Trump’s) promise would be violated by House GOP bill, as it seeks to freeze Medicaid expansion money for states in 2020 by withhold funding at the enhanced match rate for any new enrollees after that point. Other beneficiaries are at risk with the more long-term transformation that program stands to undergo under the GOP bill. The legislation would overhaul the program—now an unlimited federal match rate—into a per capita cap system, meaning that states would get a fixed amount of funding per enrollee. The Congressional Budget Office, analyzing an initial version of the legislation, predicted out of the 24 million Americans who would lose coverage under the earlier GOP bill compared to current law, 14 million were due to its changes to Medicaid. [TPM]

Given there is no CBO scoring on the current edition, we can’t be certain that States like Nevada which expanded Medicaid enrollment in order to make health care access affordable, won’t be left in the lurch — Congressman Amodei’s tortured logic to the contrary. So, nothing is likely to be done about the executive who fired the Director of the FBI who was supervising the investigation of Russian meddling in our elections (and possible Trump connections to that meddling) until Medicaid cuts are also tucked into the President’s portfolio for a signing ceremony.

When will Republicans address the Leaker-in-Chief’s discussions with the Russian visitors to the White House? Probably not until the budget cuts to the Department of the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, Medicare, Health and Human Services, and the Department of Education come to fruition. Do we have a situation in which the following is true? If the Trumpian honeymoon isn’t over, it soon will be.

That sentiment was echoed by a prominent GOP consultant I spoke to who asked not to be named to offer a candid assessment of Trump and congressional Republicans.
“The question for Republicans is whether this is the straw that breaks the camel’s back,” said the source. “Forty percent approval is not the issue; an erratic, rudderless, leaderless White House is.” [CNN]

The camel’s back may not bend until the Republicans have seen their agenda realized, their Randian Dreams made true, and their Austerity Government imposed on the American people. The damage of this administration and the Republicans in Congress who enable and excuse him is only starting to come to fruition.

The 45 Administration would very much like to have Judge Gorsuch confirmed as a member of the US Supreme Court. The judge for his part has been loathe to offer any more than Name, Rank, and Serial Number during his confirmation hearings. Not that this tactic is anything new in the process. Famous for his Hobby Lobby decision, his dissent in TransAm Trucking v. ARB-DOl, (PDF) is attracting attention. This is the now infamous Frozen Trucker Case in which Judge Gorsuch opined that taking such things as common sense, and legislative intent, were extraneous and if to operate a truck means to drive a truck (and its trailer with the frozen brakes) then that’s all there is to say on the subject. It’s interesting to note that Judge Gorsuch was dismissive of reinterpreting the wording of a statute, while interpreting the wording of a statute in such a way as to defend the indefensible actions of the trucking company. In less complimentary terms, the Gorsuch rule appears to be an interpretation is acceptable if and only if that reading agrees with his interpretation.

There is still time to reach Nevada’s Senators, Heller (702-338-6605) (775-686-5729) and Cortez Masto (702-388-5020) (775-686-5750) (202-224-3542) on this subject. Little wonder that Democratic Senators interviewed on the topic have said things like “his answers are unacceptable,” and “his answers are evasive,” and “his answers have been less than forthcoming…”

Judge Gorsuch needs to supply more than the Alito/Roberts song and dance routine to the Judiciary Committee, and the Senators need to attend to the fundamental problems with his nomination to the highest court in the land. His responses so far have been noncommittal and apolitical, but his decisions have been those of an activist ultra conservative. Actions do, indeed, speak louder than words.

Good morning, another day another 24 hours of trumpster fires, lit by the tinder of well worn Republican mythology.

The Economy Works In Reverse. Let’s guess that the whopping increase in defense spending will be covered by an increase in “economic growth.” I doubt very seriously that my utility company would be much impressed by my assertion that increases in my power bill will be paid for by my getting up an hour and a half earlier every morning. The argument would go “because I get up earlier I will be more productive, and if I am more productive then my earnings will increase. If my earnings increase then I will have more money to spend, and therefore my bills will ‘pay themselves.'” Gee, perhaps if I aroused myself two hours earlier I could trade my vehicle in for a Cadillac CTS-V? Somehow, I don’t think my banker will be sufficiently enamored of my presentation to hand over the money.

There’s another facet of the administration’s fantasy economy which we need to discuss, at least two ways in which while waving its firearms it shoots itself in the foot. Round one into the metatarsal — anti-immigration rhetoric and action. Before theorizing about economic growth, the GOP might want to look at economic activity in our major urban centers, which depend in no small part on their immigrant communities.

Round two into the navicular bone comes compliments of heavy budget cuts. For the millionth time in this blog, there’s a formula for the gross domestic product. Once more C+I+G + (Ex-IM) = GDP. That G stands for government spending, and not just defense spending. Want to expand the consumer economy? Then remember that every dollar spent on the SNAP program almost doubles in economic activity.

Round three into the phalanges: Seek to limit increases in the minimum wage. Evidently it has not occurred to GOP economists that people do not spend money they do not have. They can accumulate debt (which Wall Street is only too happy to securitize) up to a point, but the point is quickly reached. Delinquency happens, leading to defaults, leading to the unraveling of all those beautifully packaged tranches of securities. We know what happened last time.

Round four into the cuboid, continue the progress of income inequality, the trends of which promote the accumulation of wealth into fewer hands, creating a surplus to be used not for corporate promotion and expansion but for the collection and trading of risk diversion securities or for corporate buy-backs which do NOT generate economic growth in the overall economy but bolster the financial sector. Have I been railing about Financialism before? Constantly?

Four shots into the foot and we’re not walking, much less running, anywhere towards overall economic prosperity. It’s the return of the old, stale, Trickle Down Supply Side Hoax nurtured and pampered by right wing think tanks and GOP orthodoxy.

And now, we should return to a discussion of why we need an independent commission to investigate the political and economic ties of the Trump-Bannon regime to the Russian government. We might also want to avoid the trap of calling for a special prosecutor, which would only have the authority to investigate outright crimes, when what we need immediately is an investigation into the possibly profound security risks in the executive branch. But that’s a discussion for another post.

We have a presidential candidate who gets up at odd hours of the night to tweet insults to former beauty pageant winners, and who expended a great deal of time and energy bemoaning the categorization of his White Supremacist followers as “deplorable.” If these are one’s priorities so be it, but there’s a difference between nightmares and issues – a differentiation not tackled all that efficiently by his supporters and surrogates.

Republicans appear to be beset with nightmares, not the least of which is we, as a nation, might seem weak in the eyes of others. Strength is Action. Action is Strength. We must, like a Hollywood B-Movie production complete with car chases and explosions, appear strong. As we do when bombing some location into gravel and small piles of rubble. This is the nightmare of the small man in the bar just before closing time, well liquored up, who decides to demonstrate his masculinity by punching some fellow who has offer some vague (and probably misinterpreted) insult. Should these people wake up and read the information available they’d find that the United States spent some 54% of its discretionary spending on the military.

And, how does this compare to military spending by other nations? The U.S. spends approximately $2.77 for every dollar spent by the Chinese.

So, this ought to give some comfort to those whose sleep is disturbed by dreams of military annihilation at the hands of the nefarious. We have the best equipped, best lead, most professional military in the world. There are issues here – not nightmares.

One issue is the tendency toward militarism, the notion that all problems have a military solution and thus the military must be accorded a prime place in national planning and policy. This topic was explored here about eight years ago:

“Evidently lost on the militarists is the notion that one can be supportive of the military without adopting militarism. In fact, a “muscular” militarism that posits the application of military force to each and every conflict is counter-productive to long term military interests. The ‘whack-a-mole’ Bush Administration/McCain policies have the U.S. Armed Forces stretched to the limit, with used and abused equipment, and over-deployed troops, who are facing serious obstacles to receiving comprehensive care and benefits after their service. A cogent, less militaristic, policy would recommend the continual evaluation of our deployment ramifications, sentient assessments of our capacities, and a rational review of our own recruiting and remuneration standards. A less militaristic policy would allow us to employ the diplomatic tools in our arsenal to spare the unnecessary exploitation of our military. When we ‘wise up’ we’ll realize which Party’s candidates can deliver these policies.” [DB]

In short, if we’ll stop all the posturing and flag waving pseudo-patriotism and start thinking about how and when the use of military force is applicable without draining our resources and putting our diplomatic efforts in jeopardy, then we can all sleep a bit better.

The second nightmare which seems to be grabbing hold of the sweat soaked sheets of our Republican friends is that someone, somewhere, is cheating us out of what is rightfully ours. Taxation! Tax money being spent on Welfare Queens and Food Stamp cheats! Oh, the misery. Waking up and using The Google will solve one part of the nightmare – we really aren’t “taxed to death.”

“The tax burden is lower in the U.S. than in many other developed nations. Of 34 OECD countries, the U.S. tax rate for the average single American with no children ranks No. 17. The tax burden on a single person with two kids ranks 27th. Comparing tax rates across countries is difficult, however, without taking into account how much people benefit from their tax payments in college tuition, retirement income, or more intangible rewards, such as security and the social safety net.” [BlmbNews]

The reality is that there is no monster under the bed. We aren’t even in the top ten OECD countries in terms of taxation. But, but, but, how about welfare cheats? If we look at the SNAP program from the USDA we find that: “The SNAP national payment error rate for fiscal year 2014 is 3.66 percent. This indicates a 96.34 percent accuracy rate of providing benefits to low income people. In fiscal year 2014, over 99 percent of participating households were eligible for SNAP as determined by income and other program criteria.” [USDA] I can’t speak for anyone else, but if I could get my total financial records into the 96.34% accuracy category I’d be one happy camper in sweet dream land.

However, nightmares aren’t made of rational ruminations about fiscal accuracy and accounting practices. They come from anecdotal renditions and repetitions of ‘stories’ about seeing some guy drive up in a new pickup and toting out a case of Budweiser.

“The Act precludes the following items from being purchased with SNAP benefits: alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, hot food and any food sold for on-premises consumption. Nonfood items such as pet foods, soaps, paper products, medicines and vitamins, household supplies, grooming items, and cosmetics, also are ineligible for purchase with SNAP benefits.” [USDA]

Under the terms of the 2002 legislation, no “illegal immigrants” are eligible for SNAP assistance. [USDA] Further, ‘non-qualified aliens’ are not eligible for a host of other benefit programs, as specified in bureau or agency rules:

“Federal public benefits include a variety of safety-net services paid for by federal funds. But the welfare law’s definition does not specify which particular programs are covered by the term, leaving that clarification to each federal benefit–granting agency. In 1998, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published a notice clarifying which of its programs fall under the definition. The list of 31 HHS programs includes Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Medicare, TANF, Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, the Child Care and Development Fund, and the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program.” [NILC]

Sleep well Republican friends, the undocumented are not eligible for support, and we are being most parsimonious in regard to our bestowal of benefits.

Democrats might sleep more comfortably if the following situation were improved:

“Despite growth in SNAP caseloads since the onset of the Great Recession, about 17 percent of those eligible go unserved and SNAP is missing nearly six in ten eligible elderly persons. SNAP policies that improve program access and increase staff capacity to process applications as well as SNAP outreach can help communities, families and businesses maximize federal dollars.” [FRAC]

We should not forget the other monster in the closet. Others. If slavery was America’s Original Sin, and segregation its phalanx of myrmidons, then racism is the residual. However, demonization is not necessarily the exclusive domain of people of color – we’ve demonized Irish and Eastern European immigrants, Asian and Chinese immigrants, Jews, Catholics; and lest we forget “commies” during the McCarthy Era.

Perhaps some right wing individual tosses and turns on the mattress because the phone answering service wants to know if he’d like the message options in Spanish? This is America, Speak English! The immigrants will, like most others before them, and the native language will be lost in three generations:

“The authors found that although the generational life expectancy of Spanish is greater among Mexicans in Southern California than other groups, its demise is all but assured by the third generation. Third-generation immigrants are American-born with American-born parents but with three or four foreign-born grandparents.In the second generation, fluency in Spanish was greater for Mexican immigrants than for other Latin American groups, and substantially greater than the proportions of Asian immigrants who could speak their mother tongue very well. In the third generation, only 17 percent of Mexican immigrants still speak fluent Spanish, and in the fourth generation, just 5 percent. The corresponding fourth-generation figure for white European immigrants is 1 percent.What is endangered, said the authors, is not the dominance of English but the survival of the non-English languages immigrants bring with them to the United States.” [Princeton Edu/Massey 2006]

If we’re looking for some reason to lose sleep it might be because by the 4th generation we’ve lost 95% to 99% of the language facility we might have had in this increasingly shrinking world.

But, wouldn’t we all sleep more peacefully if we’d just SAY we need to fight “radical Islam?”

First, there’s a little problem defining “radical.” Do we mean what might be considered conservative Islam, men with beards, women in burkas? This leaves us with a problem – what to do with the Muslim family who wants the daughter to go to medical school because there’s a need for women doctors to treat women patients? What to do with the millions of practitioners of Islam who are not conservative? And the millions more who have a special word for the ISIS thugs who flout their disregard for the basic tenets of Islam – daesh. (That stuff you scrape off the bottom of your shoes.)

Sleep well, the odds against an American being killed in a terrorist attack are 1: 25,000,000. [TechJuc] Another comforting (?) thought is that an American is far more likely to be shot by a toddler than a terrorist. [Snopes]

But that is another nightmare we don’t like to talk about. I’d sleep better if we could do something about keeping firearms out of the hands of toddlers…